Private school subsidies a public disgrace

THE boys were treated like men, and not just any men, but professional sportsmen.

Last spring, Clongowes Wood College’s rugby senior cup panel went to the sun for “warm-weather training.” Forty boys, accompanied by various coaches, were dispatched to Portugal.

Everybody was pleased with the facilities. Clongowes’s head coach, Noel McNamara, was highly complimentary of the excursion, which was organised by Irish Rugby Tours.

“The hotel at Monte Gordo was excellent,” McNamara wrote to the tour operator. “It’s location near to the town, across from the beach and its proximity to the training facilities, made it an ideal place to stay.

“The food was excellent, in particular, the variety and the quality made it a lot easier to satisfy all pallets. The fact that there were only two players per room was much better than three to four and this made the quality of sleep much better, as there were only two people’s habits to suit.”

The letter, which was reproduced on Irish Rugby Tour’s website, gave an insight into the style to which the boys were treated.

“This was an extremely well-organised trip and was tailored exactly to suit our needs, the availability of a Portuguese speaking representative 24/7 was also very beneficial and was required on more than one occasion, in particular when a player had to be taken to the local hospital for treatment,” McNamara wrote.

Clongowes Wood College is one of the most expensive fee-paying schools in the State, with annual fees at €16,800. The ‘warm-weather training’ was to assist the rugby team in competing for the Leinster Senior Schools Cup, which involves three or four competitive games a year. For most boys of 16 or 17, the idea of ‘warm-weather training’ is from a different planet.

The provision of sports facilities in the public school system is uneven. Things have improved and many schools have adequate infrastructure. Others operate on a makeshift basis. But none of the pupils in the public school system are ever treated to the fantasy world of ‘warm-weather training’, whereby they are whisked off to the Iberia peninsula and accommodated in luxury.

If Clongowes, and the other fee-paying schools which splash out on this fantasy rugby stuff, were paying for it out of their own coffers it would be nobody else’s business.

But that is not the case.

Fee-paying schools are heavily subsidised by the citizens in a manner that is unique.

In most countries, private education is paid for exclusively by private interests, primarily parents. In this country, nearly €90m is provided by the State for the 56 fee-paying secondary schools.

Now, the Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, has ordered an audit of how the fee-paying schools spend the €120m generated from pupil fees.

Ironically, the pressure for such an audit is coming from Labour party backbenchers, who think the system unfair. It was the Labour party’s decision to introduce free third-level fees in 1996, which prompted more parents to spend their spare money on second-level education, thus greatly strengthening the system that party backbenchers are now decrying.

Quinn’s exercise will examine the advantages conferred on the 26,000 pupils attending these schools. For example, is it fair that fee income in Clongowes be put towards luxuries like ‘warm-weather training’, while Joe and Josephine Citizen foot the bill for the teachers in the college?

Is it fit and proper that pupils in fee-paying schools enjoy every facility available in sports, science and the arts, while children in disadvantaged enclaves go without heating in the classroom?

The anomaly of teachers’ salaries in private schools being paid by the State dates to the years after independence. Provision had to be made to subsidise Protestant schools. This was a commendable policy, as there was a danger that schools in the minority faith would be forced out of business. It remains the case that schools under Protestant patronage in rural areas have a precarious existence. A genuine case can be made for continuing to subsidise these institutions.

The case for maintaining the status quo for all fee-paying schools is another matter. One of the notable features of the sector is that demand for places has not slackened despite the recession.

This infers one of two things; either these parents have remained unaffected by the recession; or the advantage conferred on pupils in these schools is so great that parents are willing to make an extra sacrifice. Whichever of these cases apply, it is inescapable that there is a moral obligation on the Government to reassess the subsidy at a time when those less fortunate have to do without basic services.

Why should State support be extended to one group to allow for smaller class sizes, and better facilities, while pupils with learning difficulties in public schools must go without special needs assistants?

In typical Irish form, the issue has seen those involved rush to declare their victimhood.

Last Tuesday, the principal of PBC Cork, Ken Whyte, said on radio that parents who send their children to fee-paying schools were being “penalised” for their commitment to their children’s education. (To declare an interest here. I attended PBC Cork for the last two years of my schooling, nearly 30 years ago. At this remove, I have nothing but positive memories of the place).

“Rather than spending money on something else, they are putting it towards their children’s education,” the principal told RTÉ Radio’s News at One. “They are being penalised for that.”

These parents are being subsidised, not penalised. Implicit in Whyte’s argument is that parents other than those to whom he is referring are less committed to their children’s education. What really separates them is ability to pay, no more.

Huge advantages are conferred on those who attend fee-paying schools. A bigger range of subjects is available. Class sizes are smaller. School league tables suggest that pupils from these schools are more likely to attend third-level. For those destined for a career in business, contacts that often prove enduring are made at a young age. In sporting terms, it doesn’t get much better than ‘warm-weather training’.

That is why most parents who can afford it want their children educated there. Who wouldn’t want the best for their children? But public policy is supposed to cater for all of society, and conferring advantages on one section — through subsidies — can hardly be justified at the best of times, not to mind now, the worst of times.

The results of Quinn’s review will be parsed with interest. It’s difficult to see how it will recommend continuing the status quo. If private education is to continue in the current climate, the cost of the advantages it brings should be weighed heavily towards those availing of it. Basic fairness demands no less.